Christine Katlama

Decline in the AIDS and death rates in the EuroSIDA study: an observational study

BACKGROUND Since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), little is known about whether changes in HIV-1 mortality and morbidity rates have been sustained. We aimed to assess possible changes in these rates across Europe. METHODS We analysed data for 9803 patients in 70 European HIV centres including ones in Israel and Argentina. Incidence rates of AIDS or death were calculated for overall and most recent CD4 count in 6-monthly periods and in three treatment eras (pre-HAART, 1994-1995; early-HAART, 1996-1997; and late-HAART, 1998-2002). FINDINGS The incidence of AIDS or death fell after September, 1998, by 8% per 6-month period (rate ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.95, p<0.0001). When AIDS and death were analysed separately, the incidence of all deaths during the late-HAART era was significantly lower than that during the early-HAART era in patients whose latest CD4 count was 20 cells/microL or less (0.43, 0.35-0.53, p<0.0001), but at higher CD4 counts, did not differ between early-HAART and late-HAART. Incidence of AIDS was about 50% lower in late-HAART than in early-HAART, irrespective of latest CD4 count (p<0.0001). In multivariate Coxs models, with early-HAART as the reference, there was an increased risk of AIDS (relative hazard 1.39; 95% CI 1.16-1.67, p=0.0004) and all deaths (1.29; 1.08-1.56, p=0.0065) in the pre-HAART era, and a reduced risk of AIDS (0.62; 0.50-0.77, p<0.0001) and all deaths (0.66; 0.53-0.82, p=0.0002) in the late-HAART era. INTERPRETATION The initial drop in mortality and morbidity after the introduction of HAART has been sustained. Potential long-term adverse effects associated with HAART have not altered its effectiveness in treating AIDS.

Comparison of first-line antiretroviral therapy with regimens including nevirapine, efavirenz, or both drugs, plus stavudine and lamivudine: a randomised open-label trial, the 2NN Study

BACKGROUND The 2NN Study was a randomised comparison of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) nevirapine and efavirenz. METHODS In this multicentre, open-label, randomised trial, 1216 antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients were assigned nevirapine 400 mg once daily, nevirapine 200 mg twice daily, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, or nevirapine (400 mg) and efavirenz (800 mg) once daily, plus stavudine and lamivudine, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with treatment failure (less than 1 log(10) decline in plasma HIV-1 RNA in the first 12 weeks or two consecutive measurements of more than 50 copies per mL from week 24 onwards, disease progression [new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grade C event or death], or change of allocated treatment). Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS Treatment failure occurred in 96 (43.6%) of 220 patients assigned nevirapine once daily, 169 (43.7%) of 387 assigned nevirapine twice daily, 151 (37.8%) of 400 assigned efavirenz, and 111 (53.1%) of 209 assigned nevirapine plus efavirenz. The difference between nevirapine twice daily and efavirenz was 5.9% (95% CI -0.9 to 12.8). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the proportions with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations below 50 copies per mL at week 48 (p=0.193) or the increases in CD4-positive cells (p=0.800). Nevirapine plus efavirenz was associated with the highest frequency of clinical adverse events, and nevirapine once daily with significantly more hepatobiliary laboratory toxicities than efavirenz. Of 25 observed deaths, two were attributed to nevirapine. INTERPRETATION Antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine or efavirenz showed similar efficacy, so triple-drug regimens with either NNRTI are valid for first-line treatment. There are, however, differences in safety profiles. Combination of nevirapine and efavirenz did not improve efficacy but caused more adverse events.

Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs. METHODS We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Long-lasting recovery in CD4 T-cell function and viral-load reduction after highly active antiretroviral therapy in advanced HIV-1 disease

BACKGROUND Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) decreases viral load and increases CD4 T-cell counts in patients with advanced HIV-1 infection. Whether HAART can improve CD4 T-cell function, and the biological characteristics affecting immune reconstitution, remain unclear. We undertook an open prospective pilot study to address these issues. Both treatment-naïve and previously treated patients were included. METHODS 20 patients (seven naïve, 13 previously treated) were treated with one protease inhibitor and two reverse-transcriptase inhibitors and followed up for 12 months. We measured CD4-cell proliferation in response to cytomegalovirus and tuberculin antigens and counted subsets of CD4 cells at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Patients who had no antigen-specific reactivity at baseline but developed it while receiving HAART were classified as immunological responders. FINDINGS Four patients had antigen-specific reactivity at baseline compared with 14 at month 12 (p <0.001). Between month 3 and month 12 viral load fell by a median of 1.5 log copies/mL from baseline (4.6 log copies/mL) and CD4-cell count increased by a median of 63/microL (from 93/microL). Ten patients (six of seven naïve, four of 13 previously treated) were immunological responders. They differed significantly from the ten non-responders in that their viral-load reduction was sustained for 12 months, the increase in CD4 count was greater, and they showed an early increase in memory CD4 T cells with an increase of naïve T cells. INTERPRETATION HAART can induce sustained recovery of CD4 T-cell reactivity against opportunistic pathogens in severely immunosuppressed patients. This recovery depends not on baseline values but on the amplitude and duration of viral-load reduction and the increase of memory CD4 T cells.

Safety and efficacy of the HIV-1 integrase inhibitor raltegravir (MK-0518) in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant virus: a phase II randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with potent in-vitro activity against HIV-1 strains including those resistant to currently available antiretroviral drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of raltegravir when added to optimised background regimens in HIV-infected patients. METHODS HIV-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA viral load over 5000 copies per mL, CD4 cell counts over 50 cells per muL, and documented genotypic and phenotypic resistance to at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and one protease inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive raltegravir (200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo orally twice daily in this multicentre, triple-blind, dose-ranging, randomised study. The primary endpoints were change in viral load from baseline at week 24 and safety. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00105157. FINDINGS 179 patients were eligible for randomisation. 44 patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg raltegravir, 45 to receive 400 mg raltegravir, and 45 to receive 600 mg raltegravir; 45 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. One patient in the 200 mg group did not receive treatment and was therefore excluded from the analyses. For all groups, the median duration of previous antiretroviral therapy was 9.9 years (range 0.4-17.3 years) and the mean baseline viral load was 4.7 (SD 0.5) log10 copies per mL. Four patients discontinued due to adverse experiences, three (2%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and one (2%) of the 45 patients on placebo. 41 patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy: 14 (11%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and 27 (60%) of the 45 patients on placebo. At week 24, mean change in viral load from baseline was -1.80 (95% CI -2.10 to -1.50) log10 copies per mL in the 200 mg group, -1.87 (-2.16 to -1.58) log10 copies per mL in the 400 mg group, -1.84 (-2.10 to -1.58) log10 copies per mL in the 600 mg group, and -0.35 (-0.61 to -0.09) log(10) copies per mL for the placebo group. Raltegravir at all doses showed a safety profile much the same as placebo; there were no dose-related toxicities. INTERPRETATION In patients with few remaining treatment options, raltegravir at all doses studied provided better viral suppression than placebo when added to an optimised background regimen. The safety profile of raltegravir is comparable with that of placebo at all doses studied.

Efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in DUET-2: 24-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND TMC125 (etravirine) is a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with activity against NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 in phase IIb trials. The aim of DUET-2 is to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of TMC125 in treatment-experienced patients. METHODS In this continuing randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, HIV-1-infected patients on failing antiretroviral therapy with evidence of resistance to currently available NNRTIs and at least three primary protease inhibitor mutations were eligible for enrolment if on stable (8 weeks unchanged) antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA greater than 5000 copies per mL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TMC125 (200 mg) or placebo, each given twice daily with darunavir-ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and optional enfuvirtide. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (FDA time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00255099. FINDINGS 591 patients were randomised and treated (295 patients in the TMC125 group and 296 in the placebo group). By week 24, 51 (17%) patients in the TMC125 group and 73 (25%) in the placebo group had discontinued, mainly because of virological failure. 183 (62%) patients in the TMC125 group and 129 (44%) in the placebo group achieved confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (difference 18%, 95% CI 11-26; p=0.0003). The type and frequency of adverse events were much the same in the two groups. INTERPRETATION In treatment-experienced patients, treatment with TMC125 led to better virological suppression at week 24 than did placebo. The safety and tolerability profile of TMC125 was generally comparable with placebo.

Subgroup and Resistance Analyses of Raltegravir for Resistant HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. RESULTS Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. CONCLUSIONS When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Perturbation of CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell repertoires during progression to AIDS and regulation of the CD4+ repertoire during antiviral therapy

The T-cell antigen receptor (TCR) repertoire was studied longitudinally by analyzing the varying lengths of the beta chain CDR3 hypervariable region during the course of HIV-1 infection and following combination antiretroviral therapy. Drastic restrictions in CD8+ T-cell repertoire usage were found at all stages of natural progression and persisted during the first six months of treatment. In contrast, significant CD4+ T-cell repertoire perturbations were not found in early stages of infection but correlated with progression to AIDS. Out of ten patients presenting with pretreatment perturbations, normalization of the CD4+ repertoire was observed in eight good responders, but not in two cases of unsuccessful therapy. These results indicate that, besides CD4+ cell count rise, an efficient control of HIV replication may allow qualitative modifications of the CD4+ repertoire balance.

Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND The continuing, randomised, multinational, phase IIB POWER 1 and 2 studies aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of darunavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We did a pooled subgroup analysis to update results at week 48 for patients receiving the recommended dose of darunavir-ritonavir compared with those receiving other protease inhibitors (PIs). METHODS After 24-week dose-finding phases and primary efficacy analyses, patients randomised to receive darunavir-ritonavir were given 600/100 mg twice daily, and patients receiving control PIs continued on assigned treatment into the longer-term, open-label phase; all patients continued on optimised background regimen. We assessed patients who had reached week 48 or discontinued earlier at the time of analysis; for the darunavir-ritonavir group, only patients who received 600/100 mg twice daily from baseline were included. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The POWER 2 study (TMC114-C202) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00071097). FINDINGS At week 48, 67 of 110 (61%) darunavir-ritonavir patients compared with 18 of 120 (15%) of control PI patients had viral load reductions of 1 log10 copies per mL or greater from baseline (primary endpoint; difference in response rates 46%, 95% CI 35%-57%, p<0.0001). Based on a logistic regression model including stratification factors (baseline number of primary PI mutations, use of enfuvirtide, baseline viral load) and study as covariates, the difference in response was 50% (odds ratio 11.72, 95% CI 5.75-23.89). In the darunavir-ritonavir group, rates of adverse events were mostly lower than or similar to those in the control group when corrected for treatment exposure. No unexpected safety concerns were identified. INTERPRETATION Efficacy responses with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily plus optimised background regimen were greater than those with control PI and were sustained to at least week 48, with favourable safety and tolerability in treatment-experienced patients. This regimen could expand the treatment options available for such patients.

Hepatitis B and HIV: prevalence, AIDS progression, response to highly active antiretroviral therapy and increased mortality in the EuroSIDA cohort

Background: Whether hepatitis B (HBV) coinfection affects outcome in HIV-1-infected patients remains unclear. Objective: To assess the prevalence of HBV (assessed as HBsAg) coinfection and its possible impact on progression to AIDS, all-cause deaths, liver-related deaths and response to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the EuroSIDA cohort. Methods: Data on 9802 patients in 72 European HIV centres were analysed. Incidence rates of AIDS, global mortality and liver-related mortality, time to 25% CD4 cell count increase and time to viral load < 400 copies/ml after starting HAART were calculated and compared between HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients. Results: HBsAg was found in 498 (8.7%) patients. The incidence of new AIDS diagnosis was similar in HBsAg-positive and HBsAg-negative patients (3.3 and 3.4/100 person-years, respectively) even after adjustment for potential confounders: the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74–1.19; P = 0.61]. The incidences of all-cause and liver-related mortalities were significantly higher in HBsAg-positive subjects (3.7 and 0.7/100 person-years, respectively) compared with HBsAg-negative subjects (2.6 and 0.2/100 person-years, respectively). The adjusted IRR values were 1.53 for global (95% CI, 1.23–1.90; P = 0.0001) and 3.58 for liver-related (95% CI, 2.09–6.16; P < 0.0001) mortality. HBsAg status did not influence viral or immunological responses among the 1679 patients starting HAART. Conclusions: The prevalence of HBV coinfection was 9% in the EuroSIDA cohort. Chronic HBV infection significantly increased liver-related mortality in HIV-1-infected patients but did not impact on progression to AIDS or on viral and immunological responses to HAART.